2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

> And if you can name any stadium for a
> top 5 sport (MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL, and
> MLS) in the US that has been built
> completely with private money within the
> past 20 years, I'd love to hear it
> because it hasn't happened in a while.

Why should they when they can get the taxpayers to pay for their facilities?

If sports franchises can't make it without a handout from the taxpayer, maybe they aren't really viable businesses. Or maybe if sports teams weren't on the dole they might have to pay their players and coaches a little less.

In today's situation when we're talking about laying teachers off because of budget shortfalls it's pretty freaking nervy to ask for a handout from the taxpayers to fund a private business venture.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

No freaking way. No money for this. And no I don't believe that the city would not be at risk. Cities always get left holding the bag.

Show me one single stadium deal where a city wasn't left with the bill.

Here's a way to make sure that the city is not exposed to risk: how about this thing is funded completely by private financing.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

It may be "right" to honor the contracts and pay the OHSU exec bonuses (although I suspect they wound't be so persnickety about contracts if the contract was worker pensions), but what this exposes is the perverse focus on short term performance in the current incarnation of capitalism.

This focus on the short term (and the reward structure that's tied to it) exacerbated, or in some cases, were the major cause of the bubbles that have hit us in the last few years. Simply put, for the executives, there was great upside, and little to no down side for taking the huge risks that the financial industry took. This is also true, in other industries.

This should be a wakeup call for ending these perverse compensation schemes.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I would think that Westerman would want Adams to stay in office - that would bolster the case for the Police union's opposition to an oversight board.

His assertion that nobody could be disciplined is absurd. So what's the real story here? Why does the police union have an axe to grind with the Mayor?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The only thing "chilling" is William Toffler's fervent belief that he knows better than the patient.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Why anticipate problems with confidentiality? Has an independent journalist broken confidentiality?

Why not allow attendance _until_ there's a problem. Seems discriminatory to treat "bloggers" as if they would break confidentiality.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Wesbury is just another fair weather libertarian. Why should we listen to him?

Here's what the WSJ's "#1 economic forecaster" (in 2001) was saying on Dec 2005:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007622

"While it is tempting to think that government programs are necessary to address anxiety, in reality only the free market can successfully navigate today's rough waters. In the end, it will be the private sector, not the public sector, that quells all this anxiety and creates the opportunities so many desire."

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Why are people skeptical? Gosh, where to start?

The people pushing this are the same people who have been telling us for the last year that everything is fine, and now suddenly it's an "OMG the world is ending give us the money" (See Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine").

The people pushing this are the same ones who said "Trust us. Let us have these changes to the banking system and everyone will prosper". Seems that only they have really prospered.

They wanted unfettered, unsupervised powers.

The middle and lower class have taken in the shorts for the last 40 years while wealth has concentrated at the top. It's entirely rational for them to be skeptical of any changes that Wall Street and its government allies are pushing.

I could go on and on, but in short, we _should_ be skeptical.

Let them fail.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Mike Reese's claim that the Portland PD's primary concern is for the privacy of those being arrested is without a doubt rubbish in the particular case being discussed. The person being arrested knew and did not object to the recording, the officers did. And if privacy is the main concern, why would the insist that the videographer shut down the camera when only he and the officer were in conversation?

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Right, more cars, more roads and more privatization. More of everything that has not worked in the past. More of everything that has gotten us into this mess.

Yeah, that'll fix things.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

John Charles, like many libertarians, lives in the imaginary world where markets are magically delicious. Where there are no externalities, no market friction, where all parties have perfect knowledge and all actions taken in the market are rational.

He cannot grasp that cap and trade is designed to address externalities in the the market because in his world market externalities do not exist.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

A couple of thoughts...

None of this would be an issue (foreclosure) if there wasn't an asset bubble. At the most fundamental level, people in foreclosure bought overvalued houses.

The realtors seem to have escaped any blame here. The NRA ("housing prices always go up!") cheerleaders deserve some of the blame for the house of cards.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Yes, focus on the people beneath you on the income and social ladder. Pay no attention to the top 1% who have been steadily enriching themselves for the last 30 years at the expense of the middle class.

BTW, where does one sign up for the "healthy, young illegal alien" health plan?

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Good luck with a rational discussion with this topic.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

What's the point of asking everyone about their favorite "story" regarding bad driver/cyclist behavior? Just to prove that everyone has an anecdote and a pet peeve?

Is that a surprise? Is it useful for drawing conclusions?

posted 5 years ago
view in context

Did you have to pollute this discussion with the NAR cheerleaders? Why didn't you just invite former NAR "economist" David Lereah. He could have talked about his 2006 book:

"Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust - And How You Can Profit from It: How to Build Wealth in Today's Expanding Real Estate Market"

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context